Gillette's New "Toxic Masculinity" Ad (1 Viewer)

[Grumpy Old Manatee]

But this...

Well, there's that, and there's also the fact that they spend tons of $$$ on naming rights to a stadium in Massachusetts where adult men are essentially expected and encouraged to assault one another on the job.

I don't use Gillette razors, but I'm guessing I use some P&G products in my daily life. I don't really know and I don't put a whole lot of thought into it. Does that make me a good or bad person?

We should all strive to be better, even if we are inherently good people. I guess I've always assumed that goes without saying? Have I become that naive?

 

[Saint_Ward]

A corporation with a household brand makes a gaff that will arguably result in the loss of a significant portion of it's customers, it makes international news, and yet posting a thread on a football forum is over the top. That makes sense.

You are just engaging in a tired old tactic here on sr.com that is obvious. You don't like the topic, you can't make a coherent reasonable argument in defense of the ad, so you try to malign the poster. Quite frankly, you are doing a pretty shirtty job of that. Of course you will get applause from others who pretend that they don't see the problems with the ad, but that's predictable.

You are taking this personal. I am not just staying you, let alone this being a topic on the board. I am saying the entire reaction to this video is pretty sad. I think more people react to being told how to react than if they just watched the ad alone.

I do think it's arguable how much of an impact this will have. My guess is little to none. We shall see.

This was my comment, which I already made. What's incoherent or unreasonable about it?

I finally watched the video. I hadn't had the time prior to now.

I really don't get the uproar. The whole tone is about how we should be good examples to each other and to our kids. Do the right thing.

Do the right thing, be a better example, is suddenly something to be outraged about in 2019?

Y'all must hate Captain America, Spiderman, the Avengers, Superman, etc.

Not anywhere near as weak as complaining about a few short examples within a 90 second commercial that is overall about just being a good example and a good man.

There has to be a level of self loathing to get upset about that.

BTW, the self loathing part is in reference to anyone who would get that worked up about being told to be a better man or that we choose to be a better example to our kids.

 

[Ambush]

Hey, you know what? My bad. I shouldn’t have said that. It was unnecessary and detracted from my point, and I apologize for it. Honestly.

Now, the fun part. What makes me more masculine? To own up to my past transgressions and apologize to you and change my ways for the better, or to stick to my guns, insist that I did nothing wrong, and make an appointment with you outside Champion’s Square?

Your good man. We can meet in champion square and beers on me. Who dat!

 

[Arathrael]

You hit the nail on the head. They are attacking bad behavior and insinuate that men of the past and present embodied that bad behavior.

Yes, they're attacking that behaviour. But otherwise, no.

They are saying that behaviour can be seen amongst men, past and present. Which it can. They're also saying that some of that behaviour has previously been encouraged through our culture and media. Which it has. And they're also saying some of that behaviour has been tolerated when it should have been condemned. Which, again, it has. They haven't exactly gone out on a limb there.

But none of that amounts to saying that men uniformly embody that behaviour. No more than someone saying, "New Orleans has a problem with gun violence" would mean they were saying everyone in New Orleans was shooting everyone else, or that only New Orleans had a problem, or even that New Orleans had the biggest problem. It'd just mean at that moment they were talking specifically about gun violence in New Orleans. Or no more than an ad depicting men with alcohol problems would be saying all men are alcoholics, or only men are alcoholics. It'd just be an ad addressing alcoholism targeted at men.

Talking about behaviour found within a group does not mean suggesting everyone in the group behaves that way.

And it makes sense to do that, to address specific groups. Everyone can't tackle everything everywhere at once. It makes sense for some to address an issue broadly, and others to address it specifically.

 

[rajncajn]

We should all strive to be better, even if we are inherently good people. I guess I've always assumed that goes without saying? Have I become that naive?

Apparently we're so far gone we need razor ads to tell us that now. Duh.

 

[Ambush]

okay, so the next thing I would point out is that "toxic masculinity" and "masculinity" aren't the same thing. We can discuss what the 'toxic' refers to and how fair it is, but they are not the same thing.

I don't think, personally, that masculinity is bad, all or nothing. I don't think femininity is good, all or nothing. And I don't recall anyone here who has said that to be masculine or have masculine traits is to also be bad.

So, masculinity can indicate something good or something bad, I think. And we can discuss this.

But to say that the message is "masculinity is bad" is to ignore the presence of the word "toxic" preceding it.

If "masculinity" was all bad, 100% of it - there'd be no reason to attach a modifier to the front of it, right? We could just say "masculinity" and the toxic would be implied. But it is appended because it isn't a metonymical association.

I think that's a crucial distinction.

I see this ad as a passive aggressive way of slighting manly man. By using examples of the extreme they attempt to pull in those associated with masculinity. This is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

Think of the times that racism is portrayed in a very subtle way. Then the person when called out says, “no no no, I didn’t say anything that was racist. I’m just pointing out that X nbr of black men, blah, blah, blah.

It’s a subtle message with a larger agenda being pushed.

Like many others, I’ve been using Harry’s for about a year and a half and have been very satisfied. And at the bottom of this page is a Harry’s ad.

Geofencing and all of its iterations amaze me and scares me all at the same time.

 

[RazorOye]

You are just engaging in a tired old tactic here on sr.com that is obvious. You don't like the topic, you can't make a coherent reasonable argument in defense of the ad, so you try to malign the poster.

you don't like someone else doing what you do and have done, repeatedly?

We're not that many pages away from you posting a picture of a guy and maligning his lack of masculinity due to his appearance and then using that assumption to defame him and discredit his work. That's a whole lotta something based on a whole lotta nothing.

Let's assume he is - as you're alleging - effeminate. Are you saying that someone who is effeminate can't also have masculine traits? Positive or negative? Are you saying that someone who is male, but effeminate can't have an informed opinion on masculinity?

We're getting into stupid territory.

And you're not even doing it in an informed way. You're doing it in a lazy, convenient, hypocritical way that lacks any credibility or integrity. Holes all over the place and you think it's capable of standing on its own.

And you want to get into a real discussion about others being critical based on superficial markers?

That's not to mention the routine namecalling and petty behavior you demonstrate on the boards towards other posters. Whatever "maligning" you perceive from Ward is a lot less than things you have said/made up about posters on these boards.

And on top of all of this, we're supposed to buy your incessant mountain-out-of-molehill manufacturing as some bit of soothsaying and truth-revealing?

It's not.

It's cultural hucksterism.

 

[Flipx99]

you don't like someone else doing what you do and have done, repeatedly?

We're not that many pages away from you posting a picture of a guy and maligning his lack of masculinity due to his appearance and then using that assumption to defame him and discredit his work. That's a whole lotta something based on a whole lotta nothing.

Let's assume he is - as you're alleging - effeminate. Are you saying that someone who is effeminate can't also have masculine traits? Positive or negative? Are you saying that someone who is male, but effeminate can't have an informed opinion on masculinity?

.

Wait, you are scratching your head wondering if that guy was effeminate?

 

[Saint_Ward]

I ask how I was being unreasonable, as I was told I didn't give a reasoned response. And instead of answering me, you take a swipe at Oye by backhandedly implying he either is effeminate or can't tell if someone is or isn't.

And people like me are the problem.

 

[rajncajn]

And people like me are the problem.

Looks like we may need another commercial to sort this whole thing out.

 

[Joe OKC]

Thank You Flip for making me aware of travesty...

But this...

Yea,,, I kinda wonder about that too...

What were we talking about again... Oh yea.. Gillette not wanting to extort females or something.
I mean..
The costume designer... "Let's put Gillette right on their arses"
Gillette: "Great idea"

 

[rajncajn]

Heh...

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I’m not sure the point of these last two posts except to highlight the ridiculousness of getting into a hyperventilation fit over corporate pandering.

 

[rajncajn]

I’m not sure the point of these last two posts except to highlight the ridiculousness of getting into a hyperventilation fit over corporate pandering.

Just pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy and, yes, the obvious pandering of their latest commercial.

 

[RazorOye]